So, you believe that government should never tell someone if murder is wrong or not? If science determines life begins at a certain point, we should not say it is wrong to take that life? Would you say it would be okay that a 1 day year old be terminated if the mother chose not to keep the baby? Would you say that if it was philosophically decided that a certain group of people were a burden on society, that society should be able to get rid of those people?

The issue is whether the baby in the belly is a person. If so, it is murder to have an abortion.

I believe scientifically it is logical to conclude that life begins at conception... that baby is a human. Murder is the taking of an innocent human life. Therefore, it is murder. If we should not make laws outlawing murder then where would you draw the line? Why?

I guess I threw myself into this situation so I will defend my words. I said I myself would NEVER have an abortion! For us to tell someone what to do with their own bodies is beyond it. Its just like telling someone they can not do drugs. They do it anyway dont they. I am against drugs as well but what poeple decide to do is what they are going to do. And laws wont help it, they will only go into closets to do it there. I never once said I believed in abortion, I said I believe in the choices people have.

It is irrational to say that since people will do something we should keep it legal. People will murder but we should not keep it legal. We should make it illegal and understand people will break the law.

Do you think the taking of a life should ever be left up to the choice of any person? At what age?

Most people don't support abortion. What they do support is a woman's right to make that choice for herself in a safe manner, with education, and lots of options. It's such a personal matter that it's hard to tell someone else exactly how they should spend the next 18 years.

So, murder should be trumped by the decision to have a "choice". Choice is not a right... life is. I would invite you to defend logically the choice postulate. I have yet to see it is rational or can rationally be defended. Yet, murder of a human is vital.

When murder is based upon the sovereign choice of someone else, we have degraded to devaluing one life below another person's choice. If we value all life, choice should be subservient to life. Murder is never about a choice, but about right or wrong.

Is the life form in a mom a living human? Is that living human precious to be protected? I guess life is less important than choice... as in Germany where life was less important than the choice and "need of the state".

Last edited by Decrease on Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

First this got way off track since this whole thing started out as a question on Obama's Homeschool stance. But since it did I am going to put in my opinion...Abortion is NOT birth control!!! Pregnancy is a direct result of having sex. If you want to engage in that activity then you should be prepared for the responsibility of children. I understand that people say what about rape and incest. Our bodies have a safeguard for some situations, a miscarriage, and for those who may have disabilities and don't miscarry who are we to decide if they should live or not. Just because a woman may not want a child does not give her the right to decide if that child should live or not. Life does begin at conception. That is when two living pieces of genetic material combine and immediately start dividing to produce a human baby. Just because it can't live outside of the mother does not make it any less of a life. Our society disposes of babies like paper plates. I don't care if the rate is down or not. It is true...Woman has sex, gets pregnant, decides it is going to be a burden, aborts. It happens all the time. It is sad when the life of an unborn puppy is more important than the life of a human, and that is exactly what has happened. If you don't want to be pregnant then do have sex. I don't understand why everyone thinks they have to try before they buy anyway, especially with all the diseases out there. In my opinion it is just plain dumb and irresponsible to do that!

Did you know that you can get an abortion cheap in MA. Because of Romney, you are REQUIRED by law to carry medical insurance and abortions are as low as $50.00 a pop on one of the commonwealth health plans. Interesting how a human life is only worth a quick $50.00 isn't it and to top that off these abortions are state subsidized.

For the person who said that they want more emphasis on the laws like car seats and things like that. Why should I listen to a government who condones the killing of unborn children on how to protect the ones I have? Furthermore, if you don't want people telling you if you can kill your unborn child or not then why do you want someone telling you how raise any that you may already have?

Now back to homeschooling and Obama. I googled it and the only thing I could come up with is that in his book he said that it should be an option for parents. This is however a politician saying this and according to the information I read he sends his kids to a private school so he actually has no idea about the public schools and the state that most of them are in. I take anything and everything that a politician says with a grain of salt. You can't trust any of them because they say what the group they are talking to wants to hear and ALL of them lie. The only groups that a politician cares to help is the one that throws the most money their way. Since most homeschoolers don't have money to burn most politicians couldn't care less if we like their policies. We also aren't a large enough or organized enough group to really threaten them yet. If you think our government gives one hoot whether or not you like their policies on homeschooling you are very mistaken. If they did then we wouldn't need the HSLDA would we?!? They would respect our decision to educate our children the way we feel is best and there would be no state or government hoops to jump through would there.

No matter what we say, your going to say another so its pointless to even debate it any longer. Yes, I am PRO choice and proud to say it. Sorry if that offends people but that is my choice on what to believe. Not once have I come back and said you are wrong for believing what you believe. You believe abortion is wrong and that is your belief and I respect that. I understand your arguments. I respect your arguments. Like I said before I would NEVER myself have an abortion, however, it it not right for me to tell someone else not to have one!! I will leave it at that and not return to this topic.

The issue is that your point is irrational and inconsistent. You clearly make a choice of one individual more important than the life of another.

I have yet to find any rational argument for the "Pro-choice" argument. You simply believe choice is more important than life--thereby excusing murder. That is probably the saddest commentary on American culture I know.

I have yet to find any rational argument for the "Pro-choice" argument. You simply believe choice is more important than life--thereby excusing murder. That is probably the saddest commentary on American culture I know.

I think this is due to the fact that most of your points are irrational, it is hard to see the other's side. I'm at a loss as to how you think marriage is simply religious when our federal government is involved.

I am pro-choice due to the fact that there is a lot more going on than just a birth. There's a child raised in a family who didn't want him/her, there's a rape situation, there's an abusive homelife.....I am not the one to decide who can make that choice and who can't, and I'm appalled that anyone thinks they can for someone else.

"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."
- M. MontessoriProud non-member of the HSLDA

1. The single cell is a distinct human with distinct DNA characteristics
2. The Single cell if kept in an environment friendly to life, will grow to become an adult. There is nothing else needed besides the basic essentials to life (nutrition and a safe environment).
3. The single cell is scientifically human in every regards.
4. There is no other point in the process in which anyone points to as being the beginning of life.

Therefore, I conclude that the single cell is a human being. Therefore, by definition, the taking of a single cell or greater is murder.

My statements in the previous post states that the other side clearly makes choice more valuable than life... more important than murder. I think that is evident.

Could you please show me where I am irrational in any of the statements above. Could you also please define the beginning of life? WOuld you not agree that you place choice as being more valuable than life or certain lives?

I have yet to find any rational argument for the "Pro-choice" argument. You simply believe choice is more important than life--thereby excusing murder. That is probably the saddest commentary on American culture I know.

I think this is due to the fact that most of your points are irrational, it is hard to see the other's side. I'm at a loss as to how you think marriage is simply religious when our federal government is involved.

I am pro-choice due to the fact that there is a lot more going on than just a birth. There's a child raised in a family who didn't want him/her, there's a rape situation, there's an abusive homelife.....I am not the one to decide who can make that choice and who can't, and I'm appalled that anyone thinks they can for someone else.

I have yet to find any rational argument for the "Pro-choice" argument. You simply believe choice is more important than life--thereby excusing murder. That is probably the saddest commentary on American culture I know.

I think this is due to the fact that most of your points are irrational, it is hard to see the other's side. I'm at a loss as to how you think marriage is simply religious when our federal government is involved.

I am pro-choice due to the fact that there is a lot more going on than just a birth. There's a child raised in a family who didn't want him/her, there's a rape situation, there's an abusive homelife.....I am not the one to decide who can make that choice and who can't, and I'm appalled that anyone thinks they can for someone else.

Thank you!

Sunny,

If you agree, can you point out the irrationality of my argument above? I think I have shown how yours is irrational... but I have yet to see how my side is irrational from your point of view. Personally, I do not see how you obviously hold to choice trumping life... where am I irrational?

No, you have shown that your opinion of my opinion is irrational in your eyes. Like I said...These are our beliefs and Im not going to lash out at what you believe. You honestly believe you are right and that is OK. I respect your opinion. I believe in freedom of choice and that is my belief. You believe in Pro Life and that is fine too. Im not here to lash out or berate people. This is an endless debate and it will go nowhere. We will not change each other minds. So repect that this is my belief. I did not say to respect pro choice I just said repect that I believe it and thats ok. I never said your beliefs are irrational you trying to change mine are irrational.

So, based upon my scenario, would you say that abortion is murder? Or, is my logic wrong? If my logic is wrong then how is it wrong? If it is right, are you concluding that murder is okay based upon choice?

That is how simple the matter is. Either abortion is murder or not. If it is murder then pro-choice believes murder is right based upon another persons choice. If it is not murder then you have to provide rationally how it is not murder.

I think that is rational.

BTW, you have yet to state when life begins, what murder is, or anything like that. You simply state that a woman should have choice. You have yet to prove that presupposition.

1. The single cell is a distinct human with distinct DNA characteristics2. The Single cell if kept in an environment friendly to life, will grow to become an adult. There is nothing else needed besides the basic essentials to life (nutrition and a safe environment).3. The single cell is scientifically human in every regards.4. There is no other point in the process in which anyone points to as being the beginning of life.

Therefore, I conclude that the single cell is a human being. Therefore, by definition, the taking of a single cell or greater is murder.

My statements in the previous post states that the other side clearly makes choice more valuable than life... more important than murder. I think that is evident.

Could you please show me where I am irrational in any of the statements above. Could you also please define the beginning of life? WOuld you not agree that you place choice as being more valuable than life or certain lives?

Thanks

Following your logic here, anyone who has ever had an ectopic pregnancy should be damned to die, rather than "murder" a cell, which would die anyway since at this point is a parasite and the human -its host.

And that is why the legal definition is different than your philosophical or religious one as to the start of life. In fact, quite a few religions used to state that the beginning of life was later than the conception date, so the debate on the when is nothing new.

Again, you can't possibly make a decision for everyone. That is why CHOICE is available.

"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."

So, based upon my scenario, would you say that abortion is murder? Or, is my logic wrong? If my logic is wrong then how is it wrong? If it is right, are you concluding that murder is okay based upon choice?

That is how simple the matter is. Either abortion is murder or not. If it is murder then pro-choice believes murder is right based upon another persons choice. If it is not murder then you have to provide rationally how it is not murder.

I think that is rational.

BTW, you have yet to state when life begins, what murder is, or anything like that. You simply state that a woman should have choice. You have yet to prove that presupposition.

OK, enough is enough!! Stop asking me if its murder!! Obviously no matter what the hell I say your going to keep asking me. I have stated I am pro choice, Is it taking a life yes. I HAVE SAID THAT!!!!!! Stop trying to twist my freaking arm to go in your direction all your doing is ticking me off. ALL I SAID IS THAT IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO TELL SOMEONE ELSE THAT CAN OR CAN NOT CHOOSE WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR OWN BODIES!!!!!! Now, I'm DONE!! And, im not trying to freaken prove anything. I was stating what I believe, not trying to change anyones damn mind! Im off to go beat my head against a wall now. Buh bye!

Decrease wrote:Yet, on an issue like this, would you not agree that it should be decided on the federal level? Whether it could or not is not the issue. Should issues like abortion, genocide, and slavery be decided on the Federal level? I agree, it must be decided but I do not think it should be an option. It appears you want issues like abortion, genocide, and slavery to be decided individually but you are afraid to answer the question due to the fact that it sounds

Just on general principle, I want to see very little decided by the federal gov't. The less power it has to control our lives, the better. Almost everything should be decided at the state level, and yes, that includes issues such as abortion and slavery. Whether you choose to follow the law if you believe it's wrong, on the other hand, is entirely an individual decision.

I do not believe we were that close to freeing slaves. Yes, Britain did free slaves long before but it was due to a procedure move years before which made the slave trade a financial suicide issue. Yet, that still does not answer the main point, should not the Federal government dictate that issue? The answer I believe most would answer, even among conservatives, is "yes". In fact, I think it would be political suicide to say otherwise. Could we have bought the slaves? Maybe, but the objection was not that people could sell the slaves but that the economy depended upon them.

The issue, though, is that the law should be enacted to protect people from a federal level. Sometimes war does take place but that is the role of the Federal government, which is the point of my post.

War was unnecessary. The North was just using its population advantage to outvote the South, basically disenfranchising them, rather than bother to prevent the collapse of the Southern economy by paying for slaves. Slavery should either have been left up to the individual states, or the federal government should have paid for the slaves.

Incidently, the South didn't depend on slaves per se, it depended on large amounts of cheap labor. The North used poor immigrants indentured to companies instead, and in terms of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", immigrants were often treated just as badly as slaves. They just weren't called slaves.

jkenney1973 wrote:Abortion- While my wife and I are both against most abortions; she did have one at 16 because of sexual abuse by her stepfather. Yes, she could have given it up for adoption, but would any "rational" person have expected her to carry that child for 9 months under those circumstances?

Are babies human beings? If so, is it ok to execute one human being for something another one did? Either abortion is murder, or it isn't murder - you can't really have a middle ground here.

So basically what you're saying is that my wife should have gone through 9 months of mental torture because of she was sexually abused? How very sadistic you are! I thought the Spanish Inquisition was bad!

Does anyone else find it ironic that many Christians came to this country to flee religious persecution? Why is it that they now persecute the rest of us? It must be a power thing. They that hold the power make the rules, right?

Iâ€™m sorry, I donâ€™t mean to get off on a rant, but I have a hard time believing that a human being would wish that kind of unbearable suffering on a 16 year old girl. What if something like that would happen to one of your own children? Hopefully it wouldnâ€™t, but what if it did? Iâ€™m not trying to be personal, just to give you some perspective.